tmc07d wrote:Besides conditional reasoning. Does anyone recommend underlining specific wording or phrases in regards to the entire section? Or just read the stimulus and address the question accordingly

tmc07d wrote:Besides conditional reasoning. Does anyone recommend underlining specific wording or phrases in regards to the entire section? Or just read the stimulus and address the question accordingly

I do the latter because I feel like underlining or circling in the stimulus would slow me down. I did this on a question that was complex and asked me whether there was multiple conclusions (pt 61) but other than that and conditional reasoning, I never underline in LR.

I use Venn diagrams at least once or twice per test. I believe Powerscore / the received view discourages them, but I find them quite useful. I think the only reason the Powerscore Bible listed for discouraging them was that the authors have found some people are too stupid to use them (that wasn't quite what was written, but it was clearly implied).

Everyone's got something different that works for them, but what I find for most students is that diagramming helps if the question has a lot of conditional logic and it's hard to grasp the issue. For me, this works out to 2-3 per section.

Also, sufficient assumptions tend to be more amenable to this approach, as necessary assumptions can be annoyingly unpredictable, and seemingly out of scope.

The only types where I do anything but read and cross out/select answers are the parallel reasoning questions. I don't always use it but sometimes it is helpful to turn the stem into something like an algebraic equation to better compare the other arguments' similarities and dissimilarities.

Oh and I did have to resort to using A, B, C on one other question about some stupid wigs - I was clueless as to the subject matter and terminology, wasn't sure if "made-to-measure" was just another way of saying "handmade", etc. I wrote letters above different terms and reread the stem and it made SO much more sense.

I think it really depends on the person. For me, I saw a score jump (-5 per section to -1/-2) when I started to underline key evidence and put brackets around the conclusion. It really made me actively identify the main point/conclusion of the question stem, which allowed me to think of various ways the argument could be weakened. It helped me out a lot because I prephrased the answer before I saw the choices and saved time because I didn't have to go through each one and rule it out.

I went through a phase during the middle of my preparation where I started diagramming for LR. I started out relatively strong in LR, missing 0-4 per section without diagramming. Started diagramming for parallel reasoning and some conditional logic ones, and got way slowed down and even missed ones I'd have gotten if I hadn't tried to diagram. Went back to not diagramming after that and consistently missed 1 or fewer per LR. So diagramming hurt me on actual tests, but the process of doing it taught me a lot about how to solve those problems without needing to diagram it. I think this worked because I ended up spending a lot longer going over the wrong answers after diagramming it because I had to see how I diagrammed wrong in addition to how the right answer was right. I imagine this is very person specific though - I never had a logic course in UG and find diagrams more complicated than those I used in LG very cumbersome.

Manhattan LSAT Noah wrote:Everyone's got something different that works for them, but what I find for most students is that diagramming helps if the question has a lot of conditional logic and it's hard to grasp the issue. For me, this works out to 2-3 per section.

Also, sufficient assumptions tend to be more amenable to this approach, as necessary assumptions can be annoyingly unpredictable, and seemingly out of scope.

AntipodeanPhil wrote:I use Venn diagrams at least once or twice per test. I believe Powerscore / the received view discourages them, but I find them quite useful. I think the only reason the Powerscore Bible listed for discouraging them was that the authors have found some people are too stupid to use them (that wasn't quite what was written, but it was clearly implied).

No, it's that Venns can imply that invalid conclusions are valid and thus cannot be relied upon.

I always underline the conclusion on Assumption family questions, sometimes on other types too. I diagram conditional logic, which usually means Justify and Parallel questions. If I notice a term shift, I'll circle the two different words or phrases. It literally takes a second or two, and I can usually mark up the passages as quickly as I read. The circles and underlines help me stay focused on where the holes are.

I like to underline words like "most" "all" "none" etc. Also, after I read a stimulus and see that a question is an assumption question, I go back and read the stimulus and draw an arrow between a gap in the logic; what would be necessary to reach the conclusion with the premises. Usually the premise I draw the arrow between and the conclusion fits almost exactly with the correct answer, that is, if you put the correct answer in place of the arrow, the argument works perfectly.